Repeal the 22nd Amendment? - Page 2

grembert · 03-09-2007, 02:55 PM

I wouldn't think that the people can hold the president responsible, with elections being only every four years. And maybe I am missing something, but it seems like that the greater danger to the best interst of the nation in the past 50 years has been presidents abusing power, when congress does not bring the right amount of control. The topic is really about how to control a powerful president ( lame duck or otherwise), and I don't see a better way to do it then with representatives in congress.

David Octavius · 03-09-2007, 04:01 PM

Originally Posted by grembert

I wouldn't think that the people can hold the president responsible, with elections being only every four years. And maybe I am missing something, but it seems like that the greater danger to the best interst of the nation in the past 50 years has been presidents abusing power, when congress does not bring the right amount of control. The topic is really about how to control a powerful president ( lame duck or otherwise), and I don't see a better way to do it then with representatives in congress.

Your absolutely right, I agree 100%, if its left to the people only via elections we are trouble, the congress has to check the President, so checks and balances need to be strong. However, when congress does fail (and it has many times), the people ought to have the power to be the last line to hold them accountable.

The Amendment is only one part of accountability to add more checks and systems to the ones you mentioned. The more layers of protection we have, the better off we will be in the long run

Also, during the business of governing (when there is no elections) not only can congress check the President but so can the judicial branch, a free and independent judiciary is crucial to our republic. Its a very good thing when politicians complain about judges, it means they are doing their job, checking an out of control government.

grembert · 03-09-2007, 06:42 PM

Originally Posted by David Octavius

Your absolutely right, I agree 100%, if its left to the people only via elections we are trouble, the congress has to check the President, so checks and balances need to be strong. However, when congress does fail (and it has many times), the people ought to have the power to be the last line to hold them accountable.

The Amendment is only one part of accountability to add more checks and systems to the ones you mentioned. The more layers of protection we have, the better off we will be in the long run

Also, during the business of governing (when there is no elections) not only can congress check the President but so can the judicial branch, a free and independent judiciary is crucial to our republic. Its a very good thing when politicians complain about judges, it means they are doing their job, checking an out of control government.

You make a good argument for controling the power of the president. But it might be more effective to limit the president's " Commander and Chief " powers, along the lines of what he can do with troops. Still, having no 22nd amendment might make a president be more concerned about public opinion in his last year(s). The 22nd amendment was virtually in effect until 1940 because every president before that wanted to follow the precedent of Washington. But I am wondering about the bigger issue - how to control the growing power of the office of the presidency.

David Octavius · 03-09-2007, 07:08 PM

Originally Posted by grembert

You make a good argument for controling the power of the president. But it might be more effective to limit the president's " Commander and Chief " powers, along the lines of what he can do with troops. Still, having no 22nd amendment might make a president be more concerned about public opinion in his last year(s). The 22nd amendment was virtually in effect until 1940 because every president before that wanted to follow the precedent of Washington. But I am wondering about the bigger issue - how to control the growing power of the office of the presidency.

Ahh thanks. In terms of how to limit the powers of the president concerning troops, I think making it explicit - via a resolution or even an amendment - that the congress ONLY can control troops during peacetime so that the president cannot use them as a political tool to introduce them to conflicts where the person sees fit.

Moreover, I would want any future war or conflict we are in to have an specific object (ie war in Iraq) and an objective (to overthrow the dictator), that congress must approve in order to go to war. Once we accomplish the objective, the presidents increase in war power is automatically taken away. This also means there can be no such thing as a "war on terror" since it not a tangible object. This too would take either a resolution or an amendment. I would suspect both would require an amendment since resolutions can easily be rescinded.

What are your thoughts?

Diamond Cross · 03-09-2007, 09:09 PM

I disagree with you on one thing, the war on terror is not an ambiguous objective, but there are probolems with it in that terrorists we're dealing with are not sponsored by a government,a t least as far as I know. IF they are sponsored then we need to declare war on that government and kick their arse.

Anyhoo, the other reason that it's not amibiguous is because there was an offical declaration of war on America through Bin Laden's Fatwah, which is something people seem to forget:

Online NewsHour: Al Qaeda's 1998 Fatwa

grembert · 03-09-2007, 10:28 PM

In the old days we fought against communism, whatever that meant to the president at the time. Now we are fighting terrorism, and are supposed to do what our leaders tell us - all for our own good. History is full of examples of dictators ( Hitler being a prime example ) who claimed to be rescuing his people from a serious danger - real or imagined. Not to be too dramatic, but, as Ben Franklin put it, we lose both our freedom and security when we trade our freedom for our security.

David Octavius · 03-10-2007, 08:03 PM

Originally Posted by Diamond Cross

I disagree with you on one thing, the war on terror is not an ambiguous objective, but there are probolems with it in that terrorists we're dealing with are not sponsored by a government,a t least as far as I know. IF they are sponsored then we need to declare war on that government and kick their arse.

Anyhoo, the other reason that it's not amibiguous is because there was an offical declaration of war on America through Bin Laden's Fatwah, which is something people seem to forget:

Online NewsHour: Al Qaeda's 1998 Fatwa

When will we know the war on terror is over? When Bin Laden is dead? No, because there are dozens of terror organizations that want to do harm to us. Is it if we win in Iraq? No, Al-Qaeda does not depend on Iraq.

There will always be forces out there that conspire to hurt us, perpetual war power for the president will only hurt us in the long run because it depends on our republic to forgo some of our liberties and rights in order for the executive to do the things that the person can't do if has to go through our representative government. Wasn't this the reason why they hated us in the first place, according to our president - our freedoms? And, in the second place, having a representative government gave us the prosperity, happiness and security we had before why can't it continue using the power built in our constitution to combat the evils we face today?

We as a people will have less power over government and less of a say over things that affect our lives. Truly I am not saying we will become a police state, but tyranny never shows itself over night, it starts will good people who overstep their authority to do what they think is right. Through inept leadership or just human mistakes one person could make a situation worse leading to more tragedy - A representative government is superior in that it forces a debate so all sides are heard and perhaps our leader discovers some things not taken to account that can minimizes mistakes. Or worse, we get a greedy leader who only wants to use the office so that their name echoes through the pages of eternity - the checks we have will be too weak to stop him.

By then the "war on terror" could of been long done but we would never know, there is always some enemy to fight, some battle that must be won. By then there wont be a republic to fight for, we will lose our identity over our elusive grab for lasting security.